Click the case name for better results:

Department for Transport, Environment and the Regions v Mott Macdonald Ltd and others: CA 27 Jul 2006

Claims arose from accidents caused by standing water on roadway surfaces after drains had not been cleared by the defendants over a long period of time. The Department appealed a decision giving it responsibility under a breach of statutory duty under the 1980 Act. Held: The appeal failed. The court was asked whether Burnside v … Continue reading Department for Transport, Environment and the Regions v Mott Macdonald Ltd and others: CA 27 Jul 2006

Burnside and Another v Emerson and Others: CA 1968

The plaintiffs were injured in a road accident caused by flooding. They sued the executors of the deceased driver whose car spun out of control into the path of their own car, and also the highway authority, who had installed a proper system of drainage (except in one respect) but whose employees had failed to … Continue reading Burnside and Another v Emerson and Others: CA 1968

Anisminic Ltd v Foreign Compensation Commission: HL 17 Dec 1968

There are no degrees of nullity The plaintiffs had owned mining property in Egypt. Their interests were damaged and or sequestrated and they sought compensation from the Respondent Commission. The plaintiffs brought an action for the declaration rejecting their claims was a nullity. The Commission replied that the courts were precluded from considering the question … Continue reading Anisminic Ltd v Foreign Compensation Commission: HL 17 Dec 1968

Acts

1267 – 1278 – 1285 – 1297 – 1361 – 1449 – 1491 – 1533 – 1677 – 1688 – 1689 – 1700 – 1706 – 1710 – 1730 – 1737 – 1738 – 1751 – 1774 – 1792 – 1793 – 1804 – 1814 – 1819 – 1824 – 1828 – 1831 – 1832 … Continue reading Acts

Earnshaw and Others v Hartley: CA 31 Mar 1999

An administrator de son tort, who was also a beneficiary, held the estate property on trust, and so could not establish adverse possession against the estate during the period of trusteeship. He held a sufficient interest in the assets already. A delay in the application for the grant did not apply where time had not … Continue reading Earnshaw and Others v Hartley: CA 31 Mar 1999

Office of Fair Trading and others v IBA Health Limited: CA 19 Feb 2004

The OFT had considered whether it was necessary to refer a merger between two companies to the Competition Commission, and decided against. The Competition Appeal Tribunal held that the proposed merger should have been referred. The OFT and parties appealed. Held: The Tribunal had misdirected itself as to one test. The statutory test required the … Continue reading Office of Fair Trading and others v IBA Health Limited: CA 19 Feb 2004

Wandsworth London Borough Council v Winder: HL 1985

Rent demands were made by a local authority landlord on one of its tenants. The local authority, using its powers under the Act, resolved to increase rents generally. The tenant refused to pay the increased element of the rent. He argued that the resolutions and notices of increase were ultra vires and void, on the … Continue reading Wandsworth London Borough Council v Winder: HL 1985

Edwards (Inspector of Taxes) v Bairstow: HL 25 Jul 1955

The House was asked whether a particular transaction was ‘an adventure in the nature of trade’. Held: Although the House accepted that this was ‘an inference of fact’, on the primary facts as found by the Commissioners ‘the true and only reasonable conclusion’ contradicted that decision. The House set out principles for establishing that decisions … Continue reading Edwards (Inspector of Taxes) v Bairstow: HL 25 Jul 1955

Lehtimaki and Others v Cooper: SC 29 Jul 2020

Charitable Company- Directors’ Status and Duties A married couple set up a charitable foundation to assist children in developing countries. When the marriage failed an attempt was made to establish a second foundation with funds from the first, as part of W leaving the Trust. Court approval was obtained, but the court ordered the remaining … Continue reading Lehtimaki and Others v Cooper: SC 29 Jul 2020

Jetivia Sa and Another v Bilta (UK) Ltd and Others: SC 22 Apr 2015

The liquidators of Bilta had brought proceedings against former directors and the appellant alleging that they were party to an unlawful means conspiracy which had damaged the company by engaging in a carousel fraud with carbon credits. On the pleaded facts, Mr Chopra and Mr Nazir were the directing organ of Bilta under its constitution. … Continue reading Jetivia Sa and Another v Bilta (UK) Ltd and Others: SC 22 Apr 2015

LB Holdings Intermediate 2 Ltd, The Joint Administrators of v Lehman Brothers International (Europe), The Joint Administrators of and Others: SC 17 May 2017

In the course of the insolvent administration of the bank, substantial additional sums were received. Parties appealed against some orders made on the application to court for directions as to what was to be done with the surplus. Held: The Court considered the so called waterfall of distributions made on liquidation which proved to be … Continue reading LB Holdings Intermediate 2 Ltd, The Joint Administrators of v Lehman Brothers International (Europe), The Joint Administrators of and Others: SC 17 May 2017

Jackson and others v Attorney General: HL 13 Oct 2005

The applicant sought to challenge the 2004 Hunting Act, saying that it had been passed under the provisions of the 1949 Parliament Act which was itself an unlawful extension of the powers given by the 1911 Parliament Act to allow the House of Commons to bring into law an Act which had not been approved … Continue reading Jackson and others v Attorney General: HL 13 Oct 2005

Miller and Dos Santos v The Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union and Others: QBD 13 Nov 2016

Article 50 Notice Requires Parliament’s Authority The applicant challenged a decision by the respondent that he could use Crown prerogative powers to issue a notice under section 50 TUE to initiate the United Kingdom leaving the EU following the referendum under the 2015 Act. Held: Once the notice had been given, it was irrevocable. Consultation … Continue reading Miller and Dos Santos v The Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union and Others: QBD 13 Nov 2016

Goodes v East Sussex County Council: HL 16 Jun 2000

The claimant was driving along a road. He skidded on ice, crashed and was severely injured. He claimed damages saying that the Highway authority had failed to ‘maintain’ the road. Held: The statutory duty on a highway authority to keep a road in repair did not include an absolute duty to remove all ice. The … Continue reading Goodes v East Sussex County Council: HL 16 Jun 2000

Volcafe Ltd and Others v Compania Sud Americana De Vapores Sa: SC 5 Dec 2018

The claimant appellants, arranged shipment of bagged Colombian green coffee beans, stowed in 20 unventilated 20-foot containers from Panama to Rotterdam, Hamburg or Bremerhaven for on carriage to Bremen. The bill of lading for each consignment covered the entire carriage. Such beans were commonly carried in either ventilated or unventilated containers. Unventilated containers were specified … Continue reading Volcafe Ltd and Others v Compania Sud Americana De Vapores Sa: SC 5 Dec 2018

British Railways Board v Herrington: HL 16 Feb 1972

Land-owner’s Possible Duty to Trespassers The plaintiff, a child had gone through a fence onto the railway line, and been badly injured. The Board knew of the broken fence, but argued that they owed no duty to a trespasser. Held: Whilst a land-owner owes no general duty of care to a trespasser, the creation by … Continue reading British Railways Board v Herrington: HL 16 Feb 1972

Douglas and others v Hello! Ltd and others; similar: HL 2 May 2007

In Douglas, the claimants said that the defendants had interfered with their contract to provide exclusive photographs of their wedding to a competing magazine, by arranging for a third party to infiltrate and take and sell unauthorised photographs. In OBG, the defendants acted as receivers under an invalid charge, and were accused of unlawful interference … Continue reading Douglas and others v Hello! Ltd and others; similar: HL 2 May 2007

A v Secretary of State for the Home Department, and X v Secretary of State for the Home Department: HL 16 Dec 2004

The applicants had been imprisoned and held without trial, being suspected of international terrorism. No criminal charges were intended to be brought. They were foreigners and free to return home if they wished, but feared for their lives if they did. A British subject, who was suspected in the exact same way, and there were … Continue reading A v Secretary of State for the Home Department, and X v Secretary of State for the Home Department: HL 16 Dec 2004